Bright Future

How to keep the Northwest’s lights on, jobs growing,

goods moving and salmon swimming in the era of climate change

Staff of the NW Energy CoalitionSteven Weiss, lead author

Ph

oto

by

Mat

t Le

idec

ker

Executive summary .....................................................................................................Page 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................Page 6

The shape of the challenge .......................................................................................Page 9

Climate changes ......................................................................................................Page 10 Growing electric demand ..........................................................................................Page 11 Retiring coal plants ..................................................................................................Page 12 Saving salmon .........................................................................................................Page 14 Summary ................................................................................................................Page 15

Solutions .....................................................................................................................Page 17

Energy efficiency .....................................................................................................Page 18 What we’re doing now ..........................................................................................Page 19 Growing opportunities ..........................................................................................Page 20 Potential and recommendation .............................................................................Page 21 Combined heat and power ........................................................................................Page 22 The ‘smart grid’ .......................................................................................................Page 23 Remote control ....................................................................................................Page 23 Remote storage ...................................................................................................Page 23 New renewable generation ........................................................................................Page 24 Developing renewables .........................................................................................Page 24 Integrating renewables into the grid ......................................................................Page 26 Putting it all together ................................................................................................Page 27

Costs ............................................................................................................................Page 29

Collateral costs and benefits .....................................................................................Page 30 Clean energy: Stimulating our economy and investing in our future Essay by Dr. Thomas Power …………….................................................................Page 31 A tale of two paths ...................................................................................................Page 33 Cutting to the chase .................................................................................................Page 34

Recommendations and conclusion ............................................................................Page 38

Bright Future acknowledgments It is impossible to acknowledge all the people and organizations that contributed to Bright Future, the second paper in the Light in the River series, so this section will inevitably be incomplete. An incomplete list, however, is better than none.

Thank you to: • TheHewlettFoundationforfinancialsupportandencouragement. • PatFord,executivedirectorofSaveOurwildSalmon,forhelpingtocreatetheLight in the River project and for hands-on help with the Bright Future paper from editing to graphics. • SteveWeiss,seniorpolicyassociateoftheNWEnergyCoalition,theprincipalauthorandanalyst. • NWEnergyCoalitioncommunicationsdirectorMarcKrasnowsky,policydirectorNancyHirshand executivedirectorSaraPattonforeditingandmoralsupport. • MarcKrasnowskyandSaveOurwildSalmoncommunicationsdirectorNatalieBrandon,NWEnergy CoalitionconsultantAliciaHealeyandoutreachassociateJesseStanley,andlayoutartistKarenGibson ofOrangeCreativeGroup,forgraphicanddocumentdesign. • RhettLawrence,SaveOurwildSalmonpolicyanalyst,forkeepinganeyeoneverydetailandkeeping the project on-track. • NicoleCordan,policyandlegaldirectorofSaveOurwildSalmon,forinsightintomakingtechnical energy analyses accessible. • DanRitzmanoftheSierraClubforfinancialandmoralsupport. • Andfinally,themanyexpertreviewerswhowerekindandgenerousenoughtodonatetheirtimeand insights by critiquing draft after draft, making Bright Future a true coalition effort.

-- NW Energy Coalition, March 2009

Table of contents

A Bright Future awaits Pacific Northwest families,

businesses and communities. We can reach it by

taking the clean-energy path. This report shows that

we can act together to:

• Assurereliable,affordable,safeandcoal-free energy.

•Createthousandsofnewjobsandincome opportunities in cities, towns and countryside.

•Replacesomehydropowertohelprestore salmon.

•Turnourcarsandtrucksintocleanmachines that also store electricity.

•Buildtomorrow’seconomies.

• Curbourdependenceonforeignfuels.

• Leadthefightagainstglobalwarming.

We have built the foundation by saving far more energy

andmoneyinthelast20yearsthanexpertsthought

possible. We are building new renewable-energy

facilities at forecast-defying speed. By ramping up

current efforts we can turn our energy, transportation

and salmon challenge into an opportunity for a bright

future.

To do its part in fighting global warming, the Northwest

electric system must reduce its greenhouse-gas

emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80%

by 2050. That will require developing more of our

energy efficiency and renewable energy potential but

also – and critically – steadily retiring all the coal-fired

power plants that now provide only 22% of the region’s

electricity but produce 87% of the power system’s

carbon-dioxideemissions.

The power system also must meet new demands

as our population and economy grow, help restore

endangered salmon and provide electricity to cars

and trucks. To do this, we must save or develop

6,500 average megawatts (aMW)1 of new carbon-free

electricity by 2020 and another 19,100 aMW by 2050.

Energy efficiency is the powerhouse. We can save

enough energy to meet all normal demand growth,

roughly 60% of our total new power needs. An

enforceable regionwide target to acquire 340 aMW of

low-cost energy efficiency per year through 2050 is a

reasonable goal given Northwest utilities’ current solid

energy-saving programs already in place, and the fact

executive summary

that saving energy is cheaper and creates more jobs

thananyotheroption.Energyefficiencyisn’tsexy;it

just works.

New clean renewable sources – wind, solar,

geothermal, biomass, etc. – will provide the rest of our

new power needs. Much of what we need by 2020

is already in the pipeline, mostly in the form of wind

power. After 2020, falling costs will likely make solar

the growth leader.

In parallel, we can create a smart grid to deliver

these clean resources. A smart grid will shift from

integrating fossil-fueled power with hydropower,

to integrating dispersed renewable sources in new

ways. The transition is already underway, and will be

accelerated by new policy innovations and some new

transmission lines. And as our cars and trucks go

electric, their millions of batteries will act as a giant,

dispersed storage system helping to provide back-up

for the entire electric grid.

FOOTNOTES

1 A megawatt – 1,000 kilowatts -- is a common measure of power (or capacity). A megawatt-hour (MWh) or kilowatt-hour(kWh)isameasureofactualuseovertime—forexample,a1,000-wattlight bulb burning for one hour uses 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity. An average megawatt (aMW) equals the total number of megawatt-hours used or produced in a year if a megawatt were spread evenlythroughallthehoursinayear;so,1aMWequals8,760MWh.CustomersofSeattleCityLight currently use about 1,100 aMW of electricity each year. In utility-speak, MW represent “capacity,” or the ability to produce power, while MWh represent “energy,” the use of that power for a period of time.

Ph

oto

by

Cal

Car

s.or

g

5

We can also build salmon and the salmon economy into

ourfuture,byreplacingabout1,000aMWofexisting

hydropower with new clean sources. This will allow

removal of the four lower Snake River dams, or making

equally effective alternative hydrosystem changes,

to restore salmon and fishing and river-based jobs

throughout our region.

This energy strategy creates more jobs and prosperity

than any alternative. Carbon-free alternatives create

up to four times as many jobs as fossil fuel options,

create them in all parts of our region, employ local

workers and keep millions of dollars circulating here

that now leave the region or country. Lower energy bills

due to efficiency measures help everyone, especially

low-income families. And more salmon also means

more jobs.

Some changes are needed to achieve this brighter

future.Tobeginwith,PresidentObamaandthe

U.S. Congress should quickly set carbon emission

limits consistent with scientists’ recommendations

and establish mechanisms to meet them, along with

incentives and penalties.

But the Northwest must not wait for national action.

The region can adopt Bright Future’s carbon-reduction

and clean-energy targets and start working toward

them immediately. We need:

1. Regional leadership from the Bonneville Power

Administration.BPAshouldsetaregionalfloorof340

aMW of new energy efficiency and 270 aMW of new

renewable energy a year.

2. A strong regional plan. The Northwest Power and

Conservation Council’s 6th regional plan should call

for enough energy efficiency and renewable energy to

meet all demand growth and wean the region from coal

power.

3. Extension of state renewable energy standards. The

federal government or the states (including Idaho)

mustadoptorextendrenewableportfoliostandards

nowinplaceinOregon,MontanaandWashington

state.

4. Prohibition of new coal plant construction or

extending the lives of existing ones.Onlybyweaning

ourselves of coal-fueled power can we reach our

greenhouse-gas reduction goals.

Working together, we can create this Bright Future for

ourselves and our children. We can keep the lights

on, the goods moving, the good jobs growing, the

rivers running and salmon swimming in the Pacific

Northwest.

The Northwest electrical power system faces immense

challenges between now and 2050, the greatest of

whichareglobalwarmingandsalmonextinction.We

can leave our children a better Northwest if we meet

them, and a far worse one if we do not. This paper

examinestheseinterrelatedchallengesandidentifies

means of meeting them that are clean, affordable and

reliable while creating a vibrant economy and ensuring

our nation’s energy independence.

Ourelectricitysystemisresponsiblefordeveloping,

operating and distributing power resources sufficient

to meet current and future electric needs. That

fundamental charge is now complicated by climate

change. The system produces nearly a fourth of the

region’scarbondioxideemissionsnow,2 a relatively

low percentage by national standards, reflecting the

system’shydro-heavymix.Butnewdemandwillnotbe

met with hydropower. Unless we choose clean-energy

options, future generation facilities could emit nearly

twiceasmuchCO2 as the system now averages.3

Northwest utilities, overall, have been making great

stridesinaddingnewcleanenergytotheirmix.Energy

efficiency efforts have saved enough electricity in

the last 30 years to power the city of Seattle three

times over. More than 700 aMW of new, non-hydro

renewables have come into the system in the past 10

years, and thousands more are at various stages of

development.

This is the time to build on those accomplishments.

To do its part in combating global warming, the system

must cut overall greenhouse-gas emissions 15% below

2005 levels by 2020 and 80% or more by 2050 and

still provide increasing amounts of power at reasonable

costs.

Much of the new demand will come from increased

population and economic activity, generally referred

toasordinaryloadgrowth.Butclimateconcernswill

create significant additional demand for electricity,

particularly to replace carbon-intensive transportation

fuels. And in addition to meeting those new demands,

theregionmustprogressivelyshutdownexistingcoal

plants to help stop global warming and to prevent and

undo damage to our environment and its inhabitants.

Some of our current carbon-free power production

mayhavetobecurtailed.Forexample,aspoolswarm

behind hydroelectric dams and temperatures rise

in upstream spawning streams, already endangered

Northwest salmon will need a larger share of basin

watertoescapeextinction.Theelectricgenerationlost

to assure salmon survival will have to be replaced.

introduction

Fortunately,ourregionisblessedwithabundant

resources and tools for meeting these challenges.

Those begin with:

• Enoughenergyandmoney-savingmeasuresto meet all new demand.

•Opportunitiestoharvestbothheatand electricity from the same unit of energy.

• Vastdevelopmentpotentialforwind,solar, geothermal and other renewable energy sources.

• Theprospectofbuildinga“smartgrid”to capture system-wide efficiencies and facilitate the integration of large amounts of intermittent renewable energy into the system.

Most of these solutions are available and affordable

now,usingoff-the-shelftechnologies.Othersare

quickly becoming both practicable and cost-effective.

After decades of incorporating new sources into the

grid, power system operators are well prepared to

capitalize on these opportunities.

footnotes

2“CarbonDioxideFootprintoftheNorthwestPowerSystem,”NorthwestPowerandConservationCouncil, Nov. 2007: 4.

3 “CarbonFootprint”:7.

Thus the region has the resources and know-how to

meet the climate challenge. Now it comes down to will

— especially political will. Northwest decision-makers

must adopt and adhere to strategies that will take us

from the unsustainable present to the clean-energy

future.

This paper presents a blueprint for keeping the lights

on, the good jobs growing, the rivers running and

salmon swimming in the Pacific Northwest.

Part I outlines and quantifies our challenge:

• ReduceCO2 pollution 15% by 2020 and 80% or more by 2050.

• Reducedependenceonimportedpetroleum.

• Meetallnewelectricityneedsduetopopulation and economic growth.

• Electrifyourcarsandtrucks.

• Phaseoutcoalpower.

• Providethewaterneededforsalmonsurvival and the clean power to replace lost hydroelectricity production.

In total, the Northwest will need just over 25,000 aMW

of new energy efficiency and clean renewable energy

by 2050, about a fourth of that by 2020.

Part II provides the game plan for meeting the

challenge. The practical solutions begin with further

accelerating the pace of regional energy efficiency

achievements.Bytakingadvantageoftechnological

evolution and co-generation opportunities, the region

can save enough electricity to cover the growth in

ordinarypowerdemands.Buildingthe“smartgrid”

will help save energy, flatten demand spikes and allow

thousands of electrically fueled vehicles to provide

some much-needed storage for intermittently produced

renewable energy.

Storage will be important to help the system integrate

up to 10,000 aMW of new clean renewable energy

by 2050, a fraction of the region’s renewable energy

potential. Least-cost wind will dominate development

in the beginning, but solar, geothermal, biomass and

other technologies will increasingly become cost-

effective.

As clean renewables are added to the grid, coal plants

will be removed. Less polluting natural-gas plants

initially will run more often, but less over time, to fill in

for dips in renewable energy generation.

Part III compares the costs of these feasible clean

energy solutions with those of continuing along

our current energy path. We look at two scenarios:

continued business-as-usual and the bright future

described in Parts I and II. We find that the new clean-

energy initiatives needed by 2050 might collectively

add about two-thirds of cent more to the price of a

kilowatt-hour of electricity than continued business-

as-usual,evenwhenweexcludethenear-certain

and rising costs of emitting carbon. The paper also

includes an article (page 34) by noted Northwest

economist Dr. Thomas Power on the job, income

and business benefits of the bright future versus the

business-as-usual path.

We conclude with policy recommendations aimed

at realizing this low-carbon, clean, affordable, job-

producing and salmon-restoring energy future.

7

The shape of the challenge

To do its part to stop the warming of our planet,

the Northwest must reduce its greenhouse gas

emissions at least 15% by 2020, and 80% or more by

2050. These targets, representing the verdict of the

International Panel on Climate Change and consistent

with the near-term goals of Western Climate Initiative,4

must be met if our region and our planet are to escape

true climate-change catastrophe. Several states,

includingWashingtonandOregoninthisregion,have

adopted loftier goals, at least in the short term.

With its glowing history of clean-energy achievements,

the Northwest electric power system and the people

whorunitarewellpreparedtomeetandevenexceed

these goals. The system’s challenge is to do so while

satisfying rising electricity demands, adapting to

climate-forced changes in supply and demand, retiring

coal plants that now serve the region, modifying

hydrosystemoperationstoavertsalmonextinction,

and integrating large amounts of intermittently

generated new renewable energy.

FOOTNOTES4 The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) is a growing consortium of Western U.S. states and Canadian provinces.ItsmembersareArizona,BritishColumbia,California,Manitoba,Montana,NewMexico,Oregon,Utah,Washington,QuebecandOntario.TheWCI(www.westernclimateinitiative.org)hassetagoalofreducingaggregateemissionsto15%below2005levelsby2020.Forthelongerterm,the WCI partners are committed to making greenhouse gas emissions reductions “sufficient over the long term to significantly lower the risk of dangerous threats to the climate” and use as their guidetheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChangeFourthAssessmentReportwhichstates:“Current science suggests that this will require worldwide reductions between 50% and 85% in carbondioxideemissionsfromcurrentlevelsby2050.”ItmustbenotedthattheWCIgoalsareactuallyfairlyconservative.Forexample,CaliforniaAssemblyBill(AB)32,passedbythelegislatureand signed by the governor in 2006, calls for enforceable emission limits to achieve a reduction inCO2 emissions to the 1990 rate by 2020. Washington Governor Gregoire’s climate-change executiveorderandSenateBill6001,passedin2007,includethesametargetforCO2 reductions. OregonHouseBill3543,passedbythelegislatureandsignedbyGovernorKulongoskiin2007,declaresthatitisstatepolicytostabilizeCO2 emissions by 2010, reduce them 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 75% below 1990 levels by 2050.

9

Climate changes

FOOTNOTES5McCabe,G.J.andD.M.Wolock,1999.“GeneralCirculationModelSimulationsofFutureSnowpack in the Western United States.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1473-1484.

6 Until recently, the region did not have to plan for summer peaks. Instead it was recognized thatifithadsufficientresourcestodealwithaseverewinter“ArcticExpress,”thesystemwouldhave ample resources in the summer. That situation has changed, as evidenced by the Council’s recently adopted Adequacy Standards that track both summer and winter peaks. See: http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2008/2008-07.htm

7See,e.g.,Miles,E.,etal.,2007.HB1303InterimReport:AComprehensiveAssessmentoftheImpacts of Climate Change on the State of Washington (Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington JISAOCSESClimateImpactsGroup).

8 These changes generally reduce the market value of the dams’ output as well. Generation in the spring, when the power is least needed, is much less valuable than summer power. These changes are already being seen. (Their value as zero-carbon resources is little affected by changes in the generation pattern, however, so long as the total output is not reduced.)

Global warming will profoundly affect the regional power system in at least three interrelated ways. It will:

• Alterthepredictablerainandsnowfallpatterns on which the hydrosystem so fundamentally depends.

• ShiftthehighestNorthwestpowerdemands from winter toward summer months, just as summertime hydropower potential is falling.

• Alterandintensifythecompetitionforriver and water resources to meet irrigation, transportation, recreation, flood control, municipal, fish and wildlife, industrial and overall power needs.

• Increasethenumberandseverityofextreme weather events, including cold-weather events. The winter of 2008-09 has featured record cold spells followed by quick melting and record flooding in some parts of the Northwest.

Justhowtheseinteractionsplayoutishardtopredict;in fact, unpredictability is all that is certain.

Most scientists agree that the hydrograph, or runoff pattern, is changing. Historically, slowly melting snowpack from late fall and winter precipitation, along with groundwater flows into the tributaries, have providedsteadyColumbiaBasinriverflowsthroughsummer to early fall. Salmon and steelhead migration has evolved around this pattern, as have the regional power and flood-control systems. Large transmission linessendexcesshydropowertotheSouthwestinspring and summer and bring in power to meet high Northwest heating demands in winter.

Warming may not greatly affect precipitation totals, but will result in more rain and less snow.5 Much of the rain will flow directly into streams. The snow that does fall will tend to melt earlier, beginning as early as December or January, resulting in a longer low-flow period and lower summer flows. The likelihood of earlier and more rapid snowmelt will affect the dams’ flood-control operations. To guard against potential flooding, dam operators will have to lower storage reservoirs in the winter further than they currently do, decreasing the possibility of achieving 100% refill by the spring. Together these factors mean less stored water will be available for fish migration, irrigation and hydropower in some years.

Shallow run-of-the-river dams, such as the four lower Snake River dams in arid eastern Washington, will lose value as reduced water flow curtails their summer and fall electrical output. The hydrograph changes will reduce dam operators’ ability to align generation with need, most critically during summer peaks when California utilities pay top dollar for our spare power.

Changing electric demand patterns are already evident. Reduced fall and winter heating loads and rising air-conditioning use are progressively shifting electric needs – both average and peak – from winter to summer.6Winterswillstillfeatureperiodsofextremeand even record cold, but those events do not negate the overall trend — either globally or regionally.

Summer will be the time of greatest competition for river resources – just when those resources are runninglow.Forexample,warmingwillraisewatertemperatures in reservoirs behind shallower, run-of-the-river dams to levels lethal to migrating salmon and steelhead.7 In response, those dams will likely have to be run at minimum operating pool during warm months to keep the waters moving and temperatures down.Furtherchangescouldincludecurtailingorendingsummertimenavigation,extendingirrigationintakes below minimum operating pools or, ultimately, removing the most problem-causing dams. All these responses will reduce the dams’ generation capacity.8

The Northwest hydroelectric power system must adapt to these climate-related changes. It must cope with altered hydrological and power-use patterns. It must adjust and in some cases reduce hydropower generation to help maintain healthy rivers and wild salmon through the era of warming. It must do all this while simultaneously reducing direct, system-wide, greenhouse-gas emissions.

Growing electric demand

FOOTNOTES9 In January 2009, the Council reduced its forecast further to a 1.6% rate of growth, reflecting the recent economic crisis, and it could go even lower. This analysis, however, uses the 1.7% value to be conservative.

10 E.g., PacifiCorp 2007 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), p. 61.

11“CarbonDioxideFootprintoftheNorthwestPowerSystem,”NorthwestPowerandConservationCouncil, Nov. 2007. p. 5. www.nwcouncil.org,

12Bio-fuelsmayalsoplayapart,especiallyiftheuseofcelluloseandalgaecanbeharnessedeconomically.

13 July 2008 analysis by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, “Impact of Plug-in Hybrid VehiclesonNorthwestPowerSystem:APreliminaryAssessment,”byMassoudJourabchi.

11

Projections of future electric demand vary according to assumptions about future power prices (higher prices reduce demand), new end-use technologies and the level of investment in energy efficiency. The region’s official power planning agency, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, foresees electric needs increasing about 1.7% per year.9 As we will see below, current Northwest conservation programs are shaving that down to about 1% per year.

The Council’s growth projection, which is generally consistent with Northwest utilities’ estimates,10 translates to about 340 aMW of additional electric demand each year.

Thus we project that the need for electricity for traditional uses will grow by about 4,000 aMW by 2020, and by another 16,000 aMW by 2050, almost matching total current demand.

Today,Northwestutilitiesareexceedingregionalenergy efficiency targets. The region is now reducing usage by more than 200 aMW of energy a year through increasedefficiency.Furtherenergyefficiencyeffortscan capture the remaining 140 aMW needed to more than meet yearly demand growth.

Demand growth projections, however, now must also account for the electrification of cars and trucks. Drastic reductions in carbon emissions from transportation will be needed to slow global warming, and the Northwest electricity system must assist in that endeavor by providing clean power to charge batteries in millions of electric vehicles.

About23%ofNorthwestCO2 emissions come from electrical generation, and 46% from transportation.11 We can reduce transportation-related emissions by:

•Cuttingper-personvehiclemilestraveled through electronic virtual transportation (videoconferencing, webinars and teleconferencing), mass transit, increased urban density and individual decisions to walk or ride bicycles.

• Awholesaleswitchtoelectricandhybrid- electric cars and trucks. Eventually, electricity- powered vehicles should achieve the petroleum equivalent of more than 100 miles per gallon.12

Theelectricpowersystemhasanopportunitytoextendits own clean-energy leadership into the transportation sector, and get some very important benefits in return.

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council recently studied the grid impacts of a large regional move toward plug-in electric or hybrid gas/electric vehicles.13 The study assumes that by about 2030, a fourth of the region’s cars and small trucks – about 2.5 million vehicles – will be plug-ins, adding about 500aMWtoregionalpowerneeds.By2050,virtuallyall cars and trucks on Northwest highways – about 10 million vehicles – could be electrically powered,

increasing demand about 2,000 aMW, nearly twice the electricity annually consumed by customers of Seattle City Light.

The greenhouse-gas emission reductions would be enormous. Using natural gas to generate electricity to fuel 2.5 million electric cars and small trucks would increasetheelectricsystem’stotalCO2 emissions byabout4milliontonsayear;usingrenewableswouldaddlittleornoCO2. Meanwhile, annual vehicle emissions would be slashed about 12 million tons, so even in the natural gas scenario, the net reduction would be at least equal to closing down three 400-megawatt conventional coal plants.

As we’ll discuss later, the electric system would reap substantial additional benefits from the ability to remotely control the charging and discharging of electric vehicles’ batteries while they’re plugged into the grid.

Majority Owner Size (MW) Began Operation

Centralia 1 TransAlta 729 1971Centralia 2 729 1972 Boardman PGE/Idaho 560 1980 Valmy IdahoPower 254 1981 Sierra Pacific 267 1985 Bridger1 PacifiCorp/ 577 1974Bridger2 IdahoPower 577 1975Bridger3 577 1976Bridger4 577 1979 Corrette PPL Montana 191 1968 Colstrip 1 PSE, PPL 358 1975Colstrip 2 Montana 358 1975 Colstrip 3 PSE, Pacific, 778 1984 PGE, Avista Colstrip 4 PPL Montana 778 1986 Total 7,310 MW

Although the regional power system is dominated by hydropower, it generates significant global-warming emissions – an estimated 59 million tons in 2005.14 Most of that pollution comes from 14 conventional coal plants with a combined capacity of 7,310 megawatts.

The following list details the coal-fired power plants that serve Northwest electric needs, along with their primary owner, size and year of initial operation. Under the bright future scenario, almost all would be retired and replaced with affordable, carbon-free resources.15

FOOTNOTES14“CarbonDioxideFootprintoftheNorthwestPowerSystem,”p.2.NorthwestPowerandConservation Council, Nov. 2007. www.nwcouncil.org. All quantities are short tons (2,000 lbs.) ofCO2.

15Permanentstorageofcoalplants’CO2 emissions might become feasible someday, but for now we assume the costs of carbon capture and storage to be prohibitive.

16 Thispaper’sanalysisusesthefull7,310MWofcoalcapacity.Outagesandmaintenancereduceaverage actual use to about 82% of that number, or 6,000 aMW. Since we model replacement of the coal plants with energy efficiency and renewables that have almost no “downtime,” our analysis is quite conservative

17“CarbonDioxideFootprintoftheNorthwestPowerSystem,”NorthwestPowerandConservationCouncil, Nov. 2007. www.nwcouncil.org. Puget Sound Energy owns several turbines that can run oneitherdieselfuelornaturalgas;theseunitsseldomrunatall,andveryrarelyuseoil,sotheoilshare of emissions is negligible.

Retiring coal plants

13

The focus on retiring coal rather than gas-fired plantsmakessensefortworeasons.First,gasplantsgeneratelessthanhalftheCO2 per unit of power than coal plants, produce fewer other pollutants, and come with lower capital costs. Second, gas new plants are moreflexibleformeetingshiftsindemand,integratingvariable resources such as wind, and reliably serving severe peaks.

Meeting the 15% by 2020 reduction goal means cuttingannualCO2 emissions by nearly 9 million tons, equal to the output of three average-sized coal plants. The 2050 targets translate to annual emissions 50 million tons lower than today’s, which means ending the emissions from 6,600 megawatts of coal – in other words, most of this region’s coal plants.

The four lower Snake dams play a role – a small one relative to the regional hydroelectric system’s overall storage capacity – in helping the system incorporate intermittent power, especially from generation sources suchaswind.Butthatrolewillsoonbeperformedbyelectricity storage including plug-in cars and trucks with storage batteries, other emerging storage tech-nologies,demand-sidemanagementorexistingflexiblegas-fired generation.

Replacing the output of these four dams is a relatively smallissueinthecontextofmeetingtheregion’scarbon-reduction targets. Chart 2 shows that with or without the dams we will need thousands of megawatts of new renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, and probably wave and tidal later on.

Chart 1

Saving salmon

FOOTNOTES18 The four lower Snake River dams (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite) have a collective nameplate generating capacity of 3,033 aMW, possible only on a few springdaysofmaximumwaterflow,orforshortperiodswhenflowsarelower.Theircombinedaverage yearly output is about 1,075 aMW. This average amount is often compared to that of the load of Seattle City Light. However, that comparison is misleading, because it is based on averages. In reality, if Seattle were to rely upon these dams, it would be blacked out most of the summer and fall, while being oversupplied in the spring.

19 Recent modeling done by the WCI shows that as new renewables are deployed in response torenewablerequirementsandglobal-warmingconcerns,existinggasplantsareusedmorefor integration purposes than for baseload generation. The modeling shows that some new gas peakers may be needed, but the total amount of generation from gas is actually reduced. Sept. 23, 2008,“RecommendationsfortheWCIRegionalCap-and-TradeProgram,”AppendixB.

Most Columbia/Snake basin wild salmon and steelhead already are endangered or at risk, and climate change is increasing the stress on their spawning, rearing andmigratoryhabitats.Preventingtheirextinctionand restoring their abundance will require cold water, more free-flowing water and just more water, period. That means changing and, in some cases, reducing hydropower production, and developing emissions-free replacement power.

The lower Snake River stocks hold special ecological value.Becausetheirspawninghabitatsineastern OregonandcentralIdahoarebyfarthehighest, coldest, healthiest, best protected and best connected in the lower 48 states, these species have a better chance than other stocks of surviving global warming. Thus, protecting their migratory passage is like building a Noah’s Ark for salmon survival.

The best available science indicates that the surest and perhaps only way to restore these wild salmon stocks is removing four federal dams on the lower Snake River by 2020 – an option that would reduce hydro generation by 1,075 aMW18 and somewhat lessen the hydrosystem’s ability to adjust generation to meet demand fluctuations or to capitalize on periods of high power sales prices.

As this report will show, increased energy efficiency and renewable energy development can easily replace the dams’ annual energy production. Increased reliance upon natural-gas generation may be needed initially to replace another valuable service the dams provide to the power system – the ability to ramp up electricity production briefly either to meet spikes in demand, to smooth out variable generation from such resources as wind or solar power, or to deal with emergencies. This important service – known as “capacity” – may be performed in the short term

by gas-fired combustion turbines that can vary their electrical output as rapidly as dams can. In general, existinggasturbineswouldberampedupanddownmore often, although total annual generation might not increase. Some new gas plants may be needed for this purpose.19

The four lower Snake dams play a role – a small one relative to the regional hydroelectric system’s overall storage capacity – in helping the system incorporate intermittent power, especially from generation sources suchaswind.Butthatrolecanbeperformedbyelectricity storage, including plug-in cars and trucks with storage batteries, other emerging storage technologies,demand-sidemanagementorexistingflexiblegas-firedgeneration.Replacingthefourdams’small contribution to renewable energy integration is part of a broader issue. To meet the region’s carbon-reduction targets, we will need thousands of megawatts of new renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, and probably wave and tidal later on.

Summary

15

This paper looks at two benchmark years, 2020 and 2050, reflecting the timeframes used by international climate scientists, proposed federal legislation and individual states.

TomeettheNorthwest’scarbondioxideemissions-reduction targets for 2020, the power system must:

• Serveoravoid4,000aMWofnewordinary electricity demand.

•Serve500aMWofelectricvehicleload.

• Replacealittlemorethan1,000aMWof power plus up to 2,000 megawatts of capacity from the four lower Snake River dams.

• Retire,andreplacewithcleanenergy,the powerfrom1,000aMWofexistingcoalplants.

Assuming those goals are met, meeting the Northwest powersystem’s2050carbondioxideemissions-reduction targets will require:

• Servingoravoidinganother12,000aMWofnew electric demand.

• Servinganother1,500aMWofelectricvehicle load.

• Retiring,andreplacingwithcleanenergy,the powerfromanother5,600aMWofexistingcoal plants.

As Chart 2 shows, to satisfy growing demands while slashing greenhouse-gas emissions, the Northwest power system must develop 6,500 aMW of new energy efficiency and renewables by 2020, and another 19,100 by 2050, for a total of 25,600 aMW of new carbon-free power.

Part II lays out a reasonable, responsible and achievable plan for meeting our challenge.

Chart 2

Solutions

By2050,theNorthwestwillneedmorenewcarbon-

free power than the total amount of electricity the

region now consumes. The power system must develop

and incorporate 25,600 aMW of new energy efficiency

and new clean power from renewable sources to fulfill

its responsibilities for addressing climate change,

keeping the lights on and recovering salmon.

We are not starting from zero, however. In the last few

years,regionalutilitieshaveexceededenergy

efficiency goals and significantly advanced renewable

energy development. The Northwest has skilled citizen

andutilityproblem-solversand30yearsofexperience

with basic technical and policy tools to deliver energy

efficiency and renewable energy resources. The states,

provinces and federal governments of the United

States and Canada are fashioning new policy tools,

including renewable portfolio standards, emissions

performance standards and carbon cap-and-trade or

carbontaxsystems.

These new policy tools join those we’ve plied

successfully for years. We can draw on the rapidly

fillingregionaltoolboxtobuildacleanandaffordable

energy future with abundant salmon, thousands of

good green jobs, a healthy economy and a stable

climate. We need only the foresight and will to do so.

17

Energy efficiency Energy efficiency (or energy conservation20) is the first and foremost strategy for combating climate change and satisfying growing power needs. Using power more efficiently is the surest, quickest, most reliable and leastexpensivewaytoreducecarbonemissions,andcan be done without diminishing our quality of life. It’s not about shivering in a dark house and foregoing basic comforts, but doing more with the same amount of power, or using less power to do the same things. As Amory Lovins famously noted, low-cost energy efficiency is not just a free lunch, it’s the lunch you’re paid to eat.

Efficiency is a boon to the power system and its customers, and climate change increases the urgency of making significant energy efficiency gains. Global-warming concerns aside, energy efficiency should be pursued for the money it saves families and businesses, its role in enhancing national security, the good, local jobs it creates. Energy-saving products and efficiency programs bring many more regional jobs per kilowatt-hour than do large fossil-fuel plants.

In addition, energy efficiency:

• Oftenreducesloadsmostwhensystemuseis greatest: an efficient air conditioner, for example,producesthebulkofitssavingson the hottest days when its use is greatest.

• Reducestheneedforpowersystemreserves because it never suffers outages.

• Losesnothingintransmission21 and, in fact, frees up valuable transmission capacity.

Most importantly, though efficiency measures carry a cost, they reduce consumer bills immediately. It’s easy to see why policymakers make energy efficiency the No. 1 resource for stopping warming, saving money, creating jobs and helping salmon.

We can build on the Northwest’s long and successful history of making electricity use more efficient as wellasaffordable.Anevenbroaderarrayofexistingefficiency technologies must be deployed now to reduceourcarbonimpactwhileamoreextensivesetof technologies is developed. A reasonable goal is to meet all of the region’s ordinary load growth – 4,000 aMW by 2020 and 12,000 more by 2050 – through moreefficientuseofourexistingresources.

Given recent trends, these are quite plausible targets. We need to keep doing what we’re doing now and more so.

FOOTNOTES20 The terms “energy efficiency” and “conservation” are generally interchangeable. We prefer the former, because it points toward smarter use, not just less use.

21 Losses due to the transmission of power from the power plant to an end user are 8-12% of the total power generated. And the higher end of this range occurs during hot afternoons when the system is stressed.

Ph

oto

by

Lin

da

Bro

oks

ww

w.li

nd

abro

oksp

hot

ogra

ph

y.n

et

What we’re doing now Typical efficiency measures have included insulating homes and replacing inefficient lights, air conditioners, space- and water-heating equipment, windows, appliances, motors, etc. Since 1978, according to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, utility efforts have resulted in region-wide energy savings totaling nearly 3,700 aMW, enough to meet about 18% of current demand or the electricity needs of 3 1/2 Seattles.

Those savings came at an average cost of less than 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour — less than the wholesale cost of federal hydropower and 50-80% less than what utilities now pay for other new sources of power.22 Energy efficiency cut regional demand growth in half over the last 30 years, saving Northwest families and businesses $1.6 billion per year while avoiding 14.3 milliontonsofCO2 emissions each year.

TheNorthwesthasconsistentlyoutperformedexperts’predictions of regional efficiency gains. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council produces 20-year regional power and conservation plans every five years,andherearesomeexamplesfromthefirstplan,released in January 1983:

• The1983plancalledforachieving85%of residential space heating savings potential by 2002. The region met that goal in 1992.

• Theplanforesawa43%improvementinthe efficiency of new residential refrigerators by 2002. The region met that goal a full decade earlier, even though most refrigerators had become larger and more were frost-free than before.

• Freezeranddishwasherefficiency improvementsalsofarexceededtheplan’s assessmentofachievablepotential.Freezers met the 20-year efficiency target in one year and by 2002 were using 45% less energy than the plan had considered achievable. In 2002, dishwashers were using 32% less energy than theydidin1983,farexceedingtheplan’s24% savings goal.

Forecastershavefoundtechnologicalimprovement difficulttopredict.Butitturnsoutthatimprovement istherule,nottheexception.Lightingistheclassic example.In2002,about9%ofalllightbulbs purchased in the Northwest were compact fluorescents, which compared quite favorably with thenationalaverageofjustover1%.Bytheendof2004, thanks to aggressive marketing and awareness campaigns, the region’s average had shot up to 32%, while the national average rose to just 4%.

The lesson is clear: the more efficiency we do, the moreefficiencywecandointhefuture.Buttheforegoingexamplesalsoillustrateaconsistentunder-estimation of conservation potential that continues through this day. The Council’s most recent power and conservation plan, issued in 2004, called for annual acquisition of 120-140 aMW of new, cost-effective conservation. In 2007, utilities in the region acquired 207 aMW, and were on pace for even more in 2008.

Much more efficiency can be steadily acquired by maintaining and accelerating the current pace of savings achievement, and by pushing the development of new energy-efficiency technologies.

FOOTNOTES22 It must be noted that large-scale hydropower is “tapped out,” meaning that in the future all utilities—whethercustomersofBPAornot—facethosehighercosts.

19

Energy efficiency continued Growing opportunities Energy efficiency tools constantly and often strikingly evolve. Technologies advance, designs change, system operations improve. The well of energy savings never runs dry.

Today, the promise of new energy efficiency technology breakthroughs is greater than ever. Here are some noteworthyexamples:

• Heat pump water heaters. Using similar technology to the heat pumps now used fo space heating, these units cut water-heating energy need in half.

• Ductless heat pumps. Heat pumps that can operate well below freezing are just becoming commercially available.23Becausethey’re ductless, they can be installed at far less cost and thus can be cost effective for apartments, condos and other formerly uneconomic applications.

• Solid-state lighting. LEDs (light emitting diodes) are currently cost competitive in just a few niche applications, such as desk lamps and holiday lights, though costs are quickly falling. LEDs are only about 10-20% more energy efficient (in terms of raw light output) than compact fluorescents, but feature far superior directionality, color rendition and controllability. They’re good when dimmable lights are needed and in outdoor systems linked tomotionsensors.Astheirapplicationsexpand, LEDswilldrivethenextgenerationofmercury- free efficient lighting technology.

•Information technology and entertainment. Huge savings are about to be realized in this rapidly growingsector.Virtualserversthatshare computing tasks will reduce the number of physical servers. “Dumb PCs” will access all files and programs from central servers, obviating the need for local storage and computing power. Improved desktops will cut poweruse75%.OrganicLEDswillcutflat screen energy use by the same percentage.

• Better battery chargers and power supplies. Residential and commercial plug loads are the fastest-growing component of residential and commercial building electric demand. In the nextfewyears,newstandardswillmandatebig improvements in battery chargers and power supplies for our billions of electronic devices.

• Evaporative air conditioners. Units using less than half the power of conventional units are rapidly dropping in price.

•Super-efficient, low-emissions buildings. Buildingsincorporatingefficientenergyuse with geothermal- and/or rooftop solar-generated powershouldberealizedinthenext15to20 years.24 The American Institute of Architects has endorsed the Architecture 2030 goal of making all new buildings low or “net-zero” carbon emitters by 2030. Several net-zero carbonbuildingsalreadyexist.

• Commercial and industrial load reductions. Power demand can be dramatically reduced at computer data centers (called server farms), silicon chip factories and water treatment plants. A host of so-called “smart” technologies can be employed to optimize machine and building energy use.25

The pace of innovation should continue, providing new opportunities for future efficiency investments. Nearly two-thirds of all the conservation identified in the Council’s 5th Power and Conservation Plan came from new measures and applications that were either too costly or not available when the 4th plan was issued five years before.

Higher energy costs and growing awareness of the environmental cost of greenhouse-gas emissions will push innovation even further. History shows that we areinnodangerofexhaustingtheso-called“low-hanging fruit” of cheap conservation. Rather, the more cost-saving energy efficiency we do now, the better we’ll be positioned to seize on future technological advances and to make ever-greater efficiency gains.

23 Heat pumps for space heating use only about one-fourth the energy of conventional gas or electric heat and/or air conditioning. Widespread use will reduce energy consumption significantly.

24 In 2007 the California Energy Commission recommended changing the state’s building codes to require net-zero-carbon performance in residential buildings by 2020 and in commercial buildings by 2030. See: http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/30652.

25 May 14, 2008. http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/releases/2008/0514.htm

FOOTNOTES

Potential and recommendation In Part I we noted the Northwest’s need for more than 25,000 aMW of new clean energy by 2050. As the largest, cheapest, surest and most economy-boosting new carbon-free resource, energy efficiency is the cornerstone of our clean energy future.

Theexplosioninenergy-savingsoptionsdemonstratesthat the region can significantly increase its efficiency targets and accomplishments. In fact, Northwest Power and Conservation Council senior analyst Tom Eckman believes 400 aMW per year of cost-effective savings, including those resulting from improved codes and standards, are quite achievable right now.26 That level of achievement would more than cover all projected load growth.

The forecast for ordinary growth in demand discussed earlier (1.7% per year) works out to about 340 aMW per year. A reasonable goal for the region is to cover this growth solely with energy efficiency programs. This result is consistent with a nationwide study recently released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).27

Thus we recommend establishing an enforceable region-wide savings target of at least 340 aMW a year, and reviewing and boosting that target every five years as new technologies arise and costs fall.28 Utilities, businesses and other affected sectors should have greatflexibilityinhowtheymeettheirsharesofthetarget, but achieving the target must be mandatory.

Chart 3 illustrates how saving 340 aMW per year will set the region well on the way to meeting its climate challenge. And the more we save, the less we’ll have tospendonmoreexpensivenewgeneration.Thetimehascomeforanaggressivestrategicexpansionofenergy efficiency work – across business, government, consumersandutilities.Weknowthepath;nowit’samatter of steadily following it.

26TomEckman,duringMay8,2008,Q&Aafterhispresentation,“Conservation–HowMuchandHowFast,”OregonPublicUtilityCommission.

27 http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e084.htm

28Similarefficiencystandardshavebeenadoptedbyseveralstates;Congressisdiscussinganational efficiency standard.

21

FOOTNOTES

Chart 3

Combined heat and power Combined heat and power (CHP - sometimes called co-generation) is a significant and largely untapped efficiency resource. CHP involves recycling waste heat produced at an industrial site or commercial building from on-site electricity generation to supplant energy that otherwise would have been used. A typicalexampleisinstallingasmallgas-firedturbinethat satisfies both the building’s electricity needs and its hot water or steam needs. The turbine replaces less-efficient boilers and electricity from the grid. In the past, the region’s low energy prices made this practice cost-effective only for large pulp mills, food processorsandrefiners.Buthigherfossil-fuelcostsand new small-scale generating technologies have substantially increased opportunities, especially for smaller applications.

TheOakRidgeNationalLaboratorypublisheda comprehensive study of Northwest CHP in 2004,29 finding an estimated 14,425 megawatts of new technical potential in the region.30 About two-thirds of thatpotentialinvolvesexistingfacilities,one-thirdnewones. The estimated total new potential compares to about 2,500 megawatts in service at the time of the study.Oregoncurrentlyleadstheregionbyproducing18%ofitspowerfromCHP;Idahogets6%fromCHPand Washington, the region’s largest energy producer, comes in at less than 4%. Large industrial facilities accountformorethan90%oftheregion’sexistingCHP, but about three-fourths of the future potential is found in small industrial and commercial/institutional settings.

TheOakRidgestudyusesacost-effectivenessfilterto calculate CHP’s “Economic Market Potential.” With modest incentives covering 15% of initial capital costs and removal of grid-connection barriers, some 5,100 megawatts of cost-effective CHP are estimated to be available in the region.

While CHP has been heralded as a great efficiency opportunity for the past 20 years, the region has struggled to fully develop this resource. Proactive policy and regulatory actions will be necessary to increase deployment of CHP technologies.

FOOTNOTES29 “Combined Heat and Power in the Pacific Northwest: Market Assessment,” August 2004, by EnergyandEnvironmentalAnalysisInc.,fortheOakRidgeNationalLaboratory.

30Thisstudy’sregionincludedOregon,WashingtonandIdaho,butnotwesternMontana.Wehavesubtracted the Alaska numbers.

The ‘smart grid’ Just in its infancy, the “smart grid” uses information technology to connect and control myriad applications. Forexample,smartbuildings,smartappliances,etc.,can be connected to residents and/or utilities via two-way, Web-based communications. The smart grid:

• Allowsutilitiestocontrolandshapepower demand based on real-time price information and grid reliability needs.

• Allowshomeowners,businessesandfactories to control power use, to save money and to schedule equipment operation.

• Helpsutilitiesoptimizetheirdistribution networks and better incorporate renewable energy resources, small-scale distributed resources and load-management technologies.

• Letscustomersandutilitiesanalyzepower-use patterns and uncover cost-savings opportunities.

Withinthenext10years,mostenergy-intensiveappliances – including furnace thermostats, water heaters, refrigerators, freezers, etc. – will be manufactured with chips that will connect them to the meter through a wireless home or business network.

This paper looks at only two major smart-grid applications: remote control and remote storage.

Remote controlAgoodexampleofsmartgridpotentialis its application to rooftop commercial heating-ventilation-airconditioning(HVAC)systems.Theseexpensive,energy-guzzlingunitscanaccountformuchof commercial buildings’ energy use and contribute mightily to utilities’ winter and summer peak demands. Surveys show that more than one in three commercial HVACsystemsdoesnotworkproperly,mainlybecauseof stuck dampers, low refrigerant or dirty filters. In response, architects usually over-design the systems withextracapacity,fansandventing—raisingcostssignificantly.

New systems include sensors and remote control technologies that can diagnose problems and inform operators of problems when they arise, even at remote locations. Proper maintenance avoids premature replacements and saves energy. And since they can count on proper operation, architects need not over-design.

Utilities could use sophisticated remote controls to shutoffHVACunitsduringpoweremergenciesortoraise temperature settings a few degrees when power costs are high during a few peak summer hours. The savings can be shared with the building owner/user as payment for permitting limited utility control. The utility benefits because shaving peaks lessens the need to keepexpensivesparegenerationonhandortobuyexpensivemarketpower.

The region has used some direct load-control devices (airconditionercycling,forexample)butonlyonalimited basis and often using one-way communication that does not permit dynamic interaction between the utility and the device (or customer). Idaho Power demonstrated the potential by shaving 48 megawatts off its summer peak in 2007 and 54 MW in 2008 through load-control programs involving irrigation and residential air conditioning.

Remote storage As noted in Part I, electrifying millions of vehicles can slash transportation-sector emissions and lower driving costs. Most of the charging would occur during low-demand nighttime hours when the grid is underutilized, so the effect on power system demand would be minimal.

In fact, transportation sector electrification may be more of an opportunity than a problem for the power system. It offers the possibility of vast, distributed energy storage.31

Vehiclescanplugintothesmartgridwhiletheirowners are at home or at work. Utilities may draw on those batteries to meet demand spikes and recharge them when demand drops. Millions of electric cars and trucks plugged into the grid thus would save utilities enormous amounts of money. They could help integrate huge amounts of wind and other intermittent renewablesatlowcost.Finally,theneedforhydropower generation adjustment (ramping up and down to follow changes in loads), on which our region dependsforgridflexibility,couldbereduced,makingrivers friendlier to fish.

Ice is another form of storage. During periods of low energy use, commercial air conditioners can switch to making ice, stored in thermal storage units. Later, the ice chills the cooling system as needed. This smart grid application provides two benefits: better integration of intermittent power and demand reductions when the system is peaking and stressed.

23

FOOTNOTES31 Larger, more centralized power storage is also close at hand and will likely be developed to helpsmooththeintermittencyoflargesolarandwindfacilities.Forexample,somelargecentralconcentrated solar plants now being planned for the desert Southwest will incorporate molten sodiumheatstoragesotheycangenerateintotheearlyeveningwhendemandisstillstrong.Othertechnologiessuchasflywheelsandexoticbatteriesarealsoreceivinglargeamountsofventurecapital financing.

New renewable generation Energy efficiency is our gold mine for new, clean, affordable energy, but meeting the region’s climate changeandextinctionchallengeswillrequirethepower system to develop and integrate 7,000-10,000 aMW of new clean renewable energy on top of the roughly 1,800 aMW of wind and biomass energy now being produced.

Developing renewables The pace of regional renewables development has accelerated in the past fewyears.Theregion’sfirstcommercialproject(FooteCreekwind)wentintooperationin1998.ByAugust2008, another 700 aMW of new non-hydro renewables — mostly wind — were providing clean energy to the Northwest.32 That significant achievement pales in comparison to the new renewables now in the pipeline, as Chart 4 shows. While not all projects may be completed, the rising potential and investment interest are clear.

(Chart 4 - Current Renewables Development)

Even the projects now in the pipeline represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of Northwest cost-competitive renewables potential. Chart 5 details the region’s wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy potential.33 It also shows that those four resources alone could more than meet all regional electric needs in 2050.

Montana holds the vast majority of that potential: more than120,000aMW,nearlysixtimestheregion’s current electricity consumption. Most of that is wind, and capturing that resource would require a large investmentintransmissioncapacity.Butgiventhevery high capacity factors of Montana wind resources (typical capacity factors greater than 40% compared to30-35%formostexistingsites),realizingatleastafifth of that potential should prove economic.”34

FOOTNOTES32FiguresonrenewabledevelopmentfromtheRenewableNorthwestProject:http://www.rnp.org.

33“RenewableEnergyAtlasoftheWest,”LandandWaterFundoftheRockies,etal.,p.13.

34Forpurposesofthisanalysis,weassumethatonly20%ofMontana’swindandsolarpotentialwillbecome available to the Northwest region.

Chart 4

Tapping our domestic wind resources brings a host of economic benefits, especially to counties and landowners in rural areas where the strongest wind resources are often located. Wind farms are compatible with farming and ranching, and royalties from hosting turbines can help keep farmers and ranchers on the land. Wind farms are also capital-intensive facilities, infusing money into the local economy during construction phases and paying propertytaxestothehostcountyaswellasroyaltiestolocal landowners for the life of the project.

Forexample,the24-MWKlondikePhaseIWindFarminOregon,averysmallprojectcomparedtomanybeing constructed today, contributes 10% of Sherman County’spropertytax.Landownersearn$2,000to$7,000 annually for each modern wind turbine located on their land.

In contrast, $350,000-$500,000 leave the Northwest economy each year to pay for the (mostly Canadian) fuel that generates 1 aMW of gas-fired electricity. A typical gas-fired turbine might drain the regional economy of more than $100 million every year.35 Wind facilities also produce more than three times as many jobs per kilowatt-hour than do coal or natural gas plants.36 Wind energy is a homegrown energy source that strengthens the economy and increases the nation’s energy security. Also, more and more wind and solar manufacturing plants are locating in the Northwest and the United States generally, creating local jobs in development, installation and operation of the new projects.

35 Natural gas fuel cost assumes a 55% efficient combined cycle plant with a 90% capacity factor usingnaturalgasat$4-$10/mmBtu.

36 Jobs per aMW generation figures come from “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can theCleanEnergyIndustryGenerate?”byDanielM.Kammen,KamalKapadiaandMatthiasFrippof the Energy and Resources Group, Goldman School of Public Policy, April 13, 2004. Energy efficiencyfigurescomefromACEEEexecutivedirectorBillPrindle,quotedin“TheFirstFuel,”StateLegislatures, March 2008 by Glen Andersen.

25

Technological improvements are lowering the costs of large- and small-scale solar, offshore wind, wave, algae and cellulosic ethanol, and second-generation geothermal resources. Solar is probably the most promising. Several very large (100- to 600-MW) utility-scale concentrating solar projects slated for the desert Southwest have already obtained approvals and utility purchase contracts.

FOOTNOTES

Chart 5

New renewable generation continued

FOOTNOTES36 Wind generation in many locations tends to be stronger at night.

Ph

oto

by

Mat

t Le

idec

ker

Distributed small-scale solar, including rooftop photovoltaic and solar hot water systems, is another huge opportunity. Photovoltaic systems are not well suited to wetter parts of the region and are still quite expensive,butcostsaredroppingrapidly.Solarhotwater systems already are cost effective for many buildings with sunny rooftop access. The power produced by small, distributed projects requires no new transmission lines and avoids transmission and distributionlossesthatoftenexceed10%ofthetotalgeneration from remote sites. Given the downward trend in photovoltaic costs, our own homes and businesses eventually could produce much of the power we need.

The energy production of non-wind renewables is less variable than that of wind, and thus easier to integrate into the system. Solar power generation complements wind36 and closely matches demand patterns. Newer concentrating solar projects now incorporate thermal (e.g.,liquidsodium)storagetoextendtheirabilitytoprovide reliable power on cloudy days or for hours after sundown.Solarcanbethenextwind,especiallyifwecommit to making it so.

In the near term, low-cost wind will remain utilities’ primary renewables choice.

Integrating renewables into the grid The region must not only develop up to 10,000 aMW of new, clean renewable energy by 2050. It also must integrate that power into the system, which means matching a lot more variable generation, especially from highly variable wind, to shifting demand.

Butforgridoperators,thisisnonewproblem.Today,demand can fluctuate 50% or more over the course of afewhours—forexample,fromacoolearlymorningto hot afternoon. Since baseload nuclear and coal plants running flat-out cannot be cheaply adjusted to follow loads, grid operators rely on the ramping ability of natural gas-fired turbines and hydropower.

As more renewables enter the system, their sheer number, variety and geographical dispersion will smooth out much of the intermittency. Advanced storage technologies combined with the smart grid — such as the use of electrically powered vehicle batteries as widely distributed storage — will help, as will increased energy efficiency efforts that lower demand peaks. In the interim, the system must make room for the new renewables by progressively closing inflexiblecoalplantsandcoveringrenewablepowerproduction gaps by running gas turbines more and spare hydro capacity if and when available.

Putting it all togetherAdded together, the region’s reasonable potential for energy efficiency, combined heat and power and new renewablesfarexceedsournewcleanenergyneeds.For2050,infact,totalcleanenergypotentialismorethan three times the total new need.

Chart 6 dramatically dispels any misconceptions about the Northwest’s ability to surmount its climate challenge. We have a cornucopia of clean energy resources, some of which could satisfy demand growth allbythemselves.Byachievingallmoney-savingenergy efficiency and tapping just a fraction of the available new renewable opportunities, we can do our part in holding back global warming, adjusting to already occurring climate changes, and serving the needs of energy consumers and fish and wildlife.

We can meet the challenge. The questions are whether we have the will to do so and how much it will cost.

27

Chart 6

Costs

We must make a choice. We can say we’ve

accomplished enough and backslide toward business-

as-usual, hoping against hope that our children and

our world will miraculously escape the fiscal and

physicaltragedyofcatastrophicclimatechange.Or

the region’s electric power system can continue to

move forward, planning conscientiously and fulfilling

its responsibilities in the fight against global warming.

That path leads to the bright future that this paper has

shown to be both possible and practical.

This section shows the bright future is affordable –

infact,it’sanexcellentbargain.Itwon’tbefree,of

course. Comparing simple direct costs only, as this

paper does, the bright future appears slightly more

expensivethanbusiness-as-usual. That calculation

comes with all the caveats appropriate to forecasting

so far into the future.

A more comprehensive cost analysis would assess

a much broader range of costs, avoided costs and

other benefits. We’ll touch on some of those before

proceeding to the simple direct cost comparison.

29

Collateral costs and benefits

FOOTNOTES38Kammen,etal,“PuttingRenewablestoWork,”andAnderson,“TheFirstFuel.”

39 “Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy: A Preliminary Assessment of Risks and Opportunities,”WashingtonEconomicSteeringCommitteeandUniversityofOregon,November2006.

Theextendedbenefitsofthebright future strongly outshine business-as-usual benefits. The bright future’s collateral benefits that are not represented in our simple cost model include:

• Restoredsalmonrunsandfisheries,alongwith the sports, commercial and tribal fishing jobs and associated economic development.

• Energy,emissionsandutility-billsavingsfrom more efficient homes and businesses.

• Reducedtransportationcosts.

• Heightenednationalsecurity.

•Localeconomicdevelopmentandgreenjobs created by investments in renewable power and energy efficiency.

That last collateral benefit is taking on ever-greater importance.Farmersneedsupplementalincometostay on their land. County and local governments are desperate for the dollars needed to provide essential services. And we need jobs – well-paid, permanent andlocaljobsinenergyefficiencyservices;jobsforLongshore workers unloading renewable-energy parts andsystemsatourports;jobsmakingandsellingenergy-efficientandrenewable-energyequipment;jobsinconstruction;jobsweatherizinglow-incomefamilies’houses;andjobssavedoraddedbecausebusinessespay less to heat and light their shops and factories.

Business-as-usual severely limits job creation. Chart 7 contrasts the number of jobs associated with various means of generating (or avoiding production of) 1 aMW of electricity. Energy efficiency brings three times as many jobs as coal or natural-gas generation, wind and biomass nearly twice as many. Solar photovoltaic’s job potential is huge.38

Byinsteadchoosingthebright future, the electric power system creates jobs and does its part to avoid the staggering costs of accelerated global warming to our economy and our environment, especially in

the highly vulnerable Pacific Northwest. According to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the region’s power system is now responsible for 23% of the region’s greenhouse-gas emissions and business as usual will increase those emissions 18% by 2024, anadditional10.6milliontonsofCO2 per year. And after 2020, when several states’ renewable-energy standards have been met, power system greenhouse-gas emissions will grow even faster.

We lack reliable region-wide estimates of how much climate change will cost. We can get an idea of the types of costs from “Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy,”39 a study produced for the state’s Department of Ecology and Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development.

Using scientists’ projections of an average 2 degrees Fahrenheitrise(fromtheperiodendingin1999)and a 3-degree rise by the 2040s, the study projects:

•A50%rise,to$75millionayear,inwildfire- fighting costs by the 2020s, not including timber losses.

•DecliningwatersuppliesforSeattle,Spokaneand Yakima, resulting in water conservation costs of $8 million a year in the 2020s and $16 million a year by the 2040s in Seattle alone.

•Adairyrevenuedeclineofupto$6millionayear in two key counties by the 2040s because of warming’s effect on dairy cows.

•$66millionayearinincreasedaveragecrop losses in the Yakima area due to more frequent droughts.

Unspecified climate-change costs include those in public health, tourism and recreation due to heat-related virus intrusions, forest fire smoke and flooding. ThoughthestudyanditsexamplescoverWashingtonstateonly,wecanexpectsimilarclimate-changeeffects on the economies of Idaho, Montana and Oregon.

As noted, the Northwest electric power system now contributes nearly a quarter of the region’s climate change impacts and costs — rising by billions of dollars each year under business-as-usual.Viewedinthat light, the bright future is an enormous bargain for Northwest consumers and ratepayers despite the slight increase in direct costs needed to achieve it.

Chart 7

By Dr. Thomas Power Chairman Emeritus, Economics Department, University of Montana

Bright Future argues that a prompt transition to a low-

carbon electricity system in the Northwest that also

helps restore salmon and electrify our transportation

fleet is practical and achievable. It is also better for our

economy. It will create more jobs and more regional

economic activity than our current electricity system,

and it will outperform any alternative.

The non-carbon path is best for the economies of

Washington,Oregon,MontanaandIdahoforatleast

threereasons.First,itwillcreatemorejobsthanany

alternative – energy efficiency jobs, renewable energy

jobs, salmon jobs, transportation jobs. Second, it

will keep more of the dollars we spend on electricity

circulating in our states, to benefit people here rather

than going out-of-region or out-of-country. Third, it will

help prevent the economic destruction that unabated

global warming will cause in the Northwest. I will

amplify each of these reasons.

Discussions of public policies to reduce greenhouse-

gas emissions usually center on what those efforts will

cost us. Although any prudent economic actor keeps

cost in mind when making decisions, cost by itself

is not the ultimate determinant. If it were, we would

never buy anything! Most of us — when we attend

a concert, purchase new clothes or buy a cell phone

— do not primarily curse the price we have to pay.

In general, if we make the right decision, we realize

that the benefits of the purchase more than justify

the price. The same will be true of greenhouse-gas

reductions.

Ourcost/benefitcomparisondetermineswhetherwe

think we made the right decision and improved our

well-being. That common economic frame of mind

must be brought to the dialogue on greenhouse-gas

reductions and global warming. What matters is not

just the cost of greenhouse-gas reductions but also the

benefits we obtain as a result. Some benefits are direct

economicgainsforourhouseholdsandcommunities;

others are the avoidance of the very bad consequences

associated with global warming. This distinction can be

thought of as the difference between the carrots and

sticks used to motivate our greenhouse gas-reduction

actions.

Let’s begin with the “carrots,” the advantages of

shifting to a low-carbon economy, separate and apart

from the damages that global warming will do to the

world as we know it. Then we will turn to “the costs of

doing nothing” to limit global warming.

Stabilizing our economiesOurcurrenthigh-

carbon energy infrastructure provides relatively

few and steadily decreasing numbers of jobs while

draining large amounts of purchasing power from

our communities and nation. As production of oil,

coal and natural gas has risen, the jobs associated

with those industries have declined. The switch to

labor-displacing and machine- and energy-intensive

technology has taken a steady toll on employment.

In addition, because fossil fuel production and central-

station electric generation are usually concentrated

in areas far away from population centers, paying for

this energy drains money from our communities. The

oil and some of the natural gas we buy drain money

from the nation as a whole and flows to unstable and

often unfriendly regimes around the world. Rather

than circulating within our local economies, putting

our neighbors to work and multiplying our collective

wealth, our energy dollars are quickly sucked away,

making our local economies poorer and less stable

than they need to be.

Creating local jobs and income Low-carbon energy

strategies boost local employment and reduce the

leakage of income from our communities in several

ways.

First,energyefficiencymeasuresandrenewable

energy sources tend to be more labor intensive than

high-carbon energy industries. As a result, increasing

our reliance on efficiency and renewables while

reducing the use of fossil fuels creates more local jobs.

Onerecentstudyfoundalmostfourtimesasmanyjobs

associated with the low-carbon alternative than with

continued reliance on the oil industry.

In addition, the types of jobs associated with energy

efficiency and renewables match the skills of the

readilyavailableworkforceinmostcommunities.For

instance, energy efficiency building retrofits require

the skills of hundreds of thousands of construction

trades workers laid off due to the housing construction

downturn in 2008. These green jobs can be taken by

locals rather than by some distant or foreign workforce.

clean energy: stimulating our economy and investing in our future

31

Also, the materials used in improving the energy

efficiency of our housing and building stock are much

more likely to be made in the United States and

obtained locally. The lower energy bills associated

with efficiency improvements also reduce the leakage

of purchasing power to distant energy suppliers, thus

increasing the local job and income multiplier impacts

of our spending. A low-carbon strategy does not

burdenourcommunitiesandhouseholds;itenhances

them, providing more vitality and resilience to our

hometowns.

Insurance against a catastrophic climate futureOf

course, our focus on reducing our carbon footprint on

this planet is driven by concern over the impact of high

and rising greenhouse-gas emissions on the climate

we share with all living creatures. These are serious

impacts with which we in the Pacific Northwest have

alreadyhadsomeexperience.Highertemperatures

and shifts in precipitation are projected to have all of

the following impacts in the Pacific Northwest in the

21st century:

• Alongerwildfireseasonwithmore,largerand

more intense fires that will clog our valleys with

health-threatening smoke, shut down many

summer economic activities, and burden

governments with control costs.

• Decreasedsummerstreamflowsthatwillcreate

water shortages for irrigated agriculture and

threaten even more the survival of endangered

fisheries such as salmon.

• Extendeddrought-likeconditionsfordry-land

agriculture east of the Cascades.

• Reducedsnowpackinthemountains,affecting

agriculture, hydroelectric generation, forestry,

fisheries and both winter and summer recreation.

• Shorelineerosionfrommoreintensestormsand

rising sea levels.

• Habitatandecosystemchangesaffectingwildlife,

forests and plant species.

Besidesthreateningsomekeyregionalindustries,

these climate changes threaten many of the very

amenities that have made the Pacific Northwest an

attractive place to live, work and raise a family and

that have contributed significantly to the economic

vitality of our communities.

We do not have to be certain that all of these things

are going to happen or about the intensity of the

impactstobegintomakesubstantialexpendituresto

protect ourselves from them. Almost all homeowners

have fire insurance even though the probability of a

home fire in any given year is incredibly tiny. Almost

noneofusbemoansourexpendituresonfireandother

catastrophicinsurance.Forourfamilies’sake,those

expendituresobviouslymakesense.

The same is true when it comes to the uncertainties

aboutthefutureimpactsofclimatechange.Forus,

our children and our grandchildren, it makes sense

to be “buying insurance” against the worst outcomes

eveniftheyareuncertain.Oneeconomicestimate,

for instance, applied conventional insurance rules

of thumb to what Americans would be willing to pay

to avoid a one chance in 100 that global warming

would lead to catastrophic economic outcomes in

this century. The study also considered a higher

probability of catastrophic economic outcomes from

global warming – one chance in 15. The “economic

catastrophe” was an economic collapse similar

in magnitude to that of the Great Depression, an

indefinite 22% decline in national GDP.

Forthelowerlikelihoodcatastrophicoutcome,the

estimate was that Americans would be willing to

pay about one-half of 1% of GDP each year for the

equivalentofaninsurancepremium.Forthehigher

probability catastrophic outcome, they would be

willing to pay 2.5% of GDP. In terms of the 2008 GDP,

these two rational global warming national insurance

premiums would be $65 billion and $365 billion per

year — $580 and $3,200 per household per year.

Clearly even relatively low probability but high-impact

threats to the future of our children and grandchildren

justifyasignificantlevelofexpenditurenowtoprotect

against that future threat. That is why most of us

voluntarily purchase a broad variety of different types

of insurance.

Ofcoursethecostofoureffortstocontrolglobal

warmingmatters.Butsodothebenefitsthoseefforts

will bring to our homes, businesses, communities,

children and grandchildren. When all of those benefits

are considered, we individually and collectively should

face that cost with a feeling of satisfaction and the

knowledge that we are making a great investment in

the future.

clean energy: stimulating our economy and investing in our future continued

FOOTNOTES40Washington15%by2020=about1,200aMW.Oregon–25%by2025=about1,500aMW.Montana – 15% by 2015 = about 130 aMW.

33

A tale of two pathsTo play its part in taking us to a bright future, the region’selectricpowersystemmustslashitsCO2 emissions while spurring the economy and recovering endangered salmon. These goals can be reached. The solution lies in retiring rather than re-powering coal plants as they reach the ends of their useful lives, replacing with clean energy the power from the four lower Snake River dams, and aggressively developing our energy efficiency, new renewables and combined heat and power resources.

Bothfutures’projectedpowerneedsunderthebusiness-as-usual and bright future scenarios are based on ordinary demand growth of 1.7% or 340 aMW a year. To that, the bright future adds replacement of the 1,000 aMW of power now produced by the four lower Snake River dams and the systemic flexibility(capacity)thedamsprovide.Italsoaddsreplacementof1,000aMWofexistingcoalgenerationwith clean energy by 2020 and another 5,600 aMW (basically retiring all remaining coal) by 2050. And it foresees provision of 500 aMW by 2020 and 2,000 aMW by 2050 to power electric vehicles, compared to 100 aMW and 500 aMW, respectively, under business-as-usual.

To cover future needs, business-as-usual:

• Extendsthelivesofthe14coalplantsnowservingthe region,allofwhichwillreachtheendsoftheirexpected operating lives well before 2050.

• Greatlyincreasesnaturalgasgeneration.

• Continuestoacquireenergyefficiencyatthecurrentrate of 230 aMW a year.

• Developsonlythe2,000aMWofnewcleanrenewable energy currently mandated by law in the various states.40

The bright future path:

• Addsanother110aMWperyearofmoreexpensive— but still cost-effective — energy efficiency and combined heat and power, thus covering all annual demand growth.

• Develops9,320aMWofnewrenewablesbetween2020 and 2050.

Cutting to the chase

FOOTNOTES41Unlessnoted,thecostsofexistingresourcesarethesameunderbothscenariosandthusarenotincluded in this comparison.

42Most future price estimates come from PacifiCorp’s 2007 integrated resources plan.

43 An average megawatt of efficiency is equal to 8,760,000 kilowatt-hours per year.

44 PacifiCorp’s 2007 integrated resource plan estimates $5,500 per megawatt for annual operation andmaintenanceofanexistingsingle-cyclecombustionturbineandupto$41,400permegawattannually for a new plant. To be conservative, we use the latter figure.

45 PacifiCorp’s 2007 IRP, pp 95-96.

To calculate and then compare costs, we multiply the amount of new resources41 specified under each scenario by known or predicted resource costs42 in today’s dollars, levelized to incorporate both capital andoperatingexpense:

• The230aMWofnewyearlyenergyefficiency the region now achieves come at an average price of about 2 1/2 cents per kilowatt-hour43 and should cost the same in subsequent years. We use 3 cents as a conservative estimate, however.

• The110aMWofadditionalefficiencytomeet rising demand in the bright future will cost more — averaging 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is still far less than new gas-fired or renewable power and about the same as electricity from re-powered coal plants (not including future carbon emissions fees).

• Newrenewablepowercosts10centsper kilowatt-hour,includingtheexpenseof integrating the often-intermittent generation. New natural gas-fired power under business-as- usual would cost the same, assuming no drastic increase in gas costs — again, a conservative assumption.

While the lost energy generation from removing the lower Snake River dams in the bright future scenario is reflected in the new clean-energy needs total, replacing the dams’ capacity function is not. We calculate that cost as $83 million a year44 which must be added to the Brightsideoftheledger.Ontheother hand, we get to subtract 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of avoided variable costs — fuel, operation and maintenance — for backing down coal plants and 6 cents for backing down gas.45 These assumptions are summarized in Chart 8.

Chart 8

FOOTNOTES

46 We divide by the larger business-as-usual scenario loads rather than the lower bright future loads, becausetheformeristheloadthatwouldhavematerializediftheextraenergyefficiencyinthebright future were not acquired. This makes the comparison a realistic measure of the added costs to serve that (business-as-usual) load whether through new resources or energy efficiency.

47 UtilitiesthatpurchasepowerfromBPA,forexample,wouldhaveratesatthelowendofthisrange, because in a carbon-constrained future that agency’s zero-carbon hydro-power sales to California would become very valuable. Revenues from those sales go to reduce public power rates even lower than they are today.

35

The cost comparisons for 2020 and 2050 total the resource costs and savings for each scenario. The actual calculations are on page 36. They show that by 2020, the new system-wide costs of meeting demand through business-as-usual will total nearly $2.2 billion (on top of current costs). Taking the bright future path will cost just over $3.5 billion. When that $1.3 billion cost difference is divided by total demand,46 the result is a difference of 0.67 cents per kilowatt-hour for the average regional electric customer. To put this into perspective, typical retail residential rates adjusted forinflationareexpectedtobeinthe7-11cents/kWh range, depending upon individual utility resource costs.47

Costs for the entire period ending in 2050 total about $12.1 billion under business-as-usual and about $14.2 billion for a bright future. The rate impact of the difference is virtually the same as in 2020 — 0.68 cents per kWh.

So the bottom line is that creating our bright future might raise the price of electricity two-thirds of a cent per kilowatt-hour more than would the business-as-usual, representing roughly a 7-9% increase over currentelectricityrates.Forcomparison,theregion’s

publicly owned utilities increased their retail rates by as much as 100% to incorporate the costs of the failed nuclear power construction initiative of the 1970s and ’80s. The publicly and investor-owned utilities that had “bet on the market” were forced to raise rates as much as 60% as a result of the deregulation crisis of 2000-2001.

Again, this cost comparison ignores the bill savings customers would realize through reduced energy use, the economic stimulus from more labor-intensive jobs and national security benefits. Nor does it reflect the tremendous environmental and social costs of unchecked climate change. Two-thirds of a penny per kilowatt-hour is a small price to pay for the benefits and the avoided costs of the bright future.

Cutting to the chase continued

Notes

37

Recommendations & conclusionThe emissions reduction challenge presented by the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change and adopted by the Western Climate Initiative requires development of enough carbon-

free energy efficiency and new renewable resources to meet all new demand and essentially replace

thepowerfrom14existingcoal-firedpowerplants.Nowisthetimeforeffectiveleadershiptopursue

these goals aggressively and to recognize that replacing the power from the four lower Snake River

dams adds only incrementally to the broader challenge.

Some immediate policy changes are needed to achieve a bright future:

1. Capping global-warming emissions.PresidentObamaandtheU.S.Congressshouldquicklyset

carbon emission limits consistent with scientists’ recommendations and establish mechanisms to meet

them, along with incentives and penalties. But the Northwest must not wait for national action. The

region can adopt Bright Future’s carbon-reduction and clean-energy targets and start working toward

them now.

2. Regional leadership from BPA.TheObamaadministrationshoulddirectBPAtoactivelywieldits

substantial power and leadership to set a regional annual floor of 340 aMW of new energy efficiency

and 270 aMW of new renewable energy.

3. A strong regional plan. The Northwest’s official power planning agency, the Northwest Power and

Conservation Council, is developing its 6th Northwest Power and Conservation Plan, forecasting power

needsforthenext20yearsandprescribingtheresourcesusedtomeetthem.TheCouncilplanshould

call for enough energy efficiency and renewable energy to meet all demand growth and wean the region

from coal power.

4. Extension of state renewable energy standards. The renewable portfolio standards now in place in

threeNorthweststatesexpireby2025.Eitherthefederalgovernmentorthestates(includingIdaho)

mustextendaprogressivestandardbeyond2025.Thepaceofrenewablesdevelopmentmustcontinue

so we can close the door on coal power.

5. Prohibition of new coal plant construction or extending the lives of existing ones.Onlybyrejecting

coal-fueled power can we reach our greenhouse-gas reduction goals. This can be accomplished

through federal action or strong emissions performance standards adopted by individual states.

These steps will set us well on the way toward a Bright Future for ourselves and our children. Working

together, we can keep the lights on, the economy and good jobs growing, the rivers running and salmon

swimming in the Pacific Northwest.

www.LightInTheRiver.org

About Light in the River Reports Light in the River is a new collaborative project that seeks

Northwest solutions to global warming that will serve as models for the nation.

Light in the River’sreportseries,andtheconversationwehopeitengenders,offersandexplores

solutionsthatwillcounterglobalwarming;preservehealthywaters,fish,farmsandcommunities;

and advance initiatives to achieve these goals.

These reports are factual and forward-looking. They start from today’s realities but focus on

tomorrow’simperatives.Eachreportwillexpressitsauthors’informedviews,ratherthanhewto

any project sponsor’s party line. Given the tough challenge posed by global warming, each paper

will tackle tough questions but do so with determination to find and implement solutions.

About Light in the River This project owes its name to Don Sampson, a leader of the Confederated

Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation. Some years ago, in a talk near the Columbia River, Mr.

Sampson acknowledged the light from the river: electricity from the river’s dams illuminating

the room in which he spoke. He then asked equal regard for the light in the river: the salmon

whose illuminations reach deep and far. Writer David James Duncan found the same image

independently when, in My Story as Told by Water, he called salmon “a fire in water – an

impossible watery flame.”

Fortheseleaders,andforothers,thelightisinthesalmon,inthewatersbearingthem,andinall

that both nourish.

The Light in the River project offers hope by seeking practical steps to counter global warming

while protecting our waters and wild salmon that give us health, food, livelihoods and endless

inspiration. www.LightInTheRiver.org

About the NW Energy CoalitionBasedinSeattle,withofficesandstaffinOregon,Idahoand

Montana, the NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of more than 110 environmental, civic and

humanserviceorganizations;unionsandfaithcommunities;andprogressiveutilitiesand

businesses throughout the region. Since 1981, the Coalition has provided policy guidance and

promoted development of energy efficiency and clean renewable energy, consumer protection,

low-income energy assistance, and fish and wildlife restoration in the Columbia and Snake rivers.

Visitwww.nwenergy.org